ecp_postgres_browse_rows

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool connects as a given db_username/password and that the user must be owned by the account, which is useful. However, it does not disclose whether this is a read-only operation, whether it returns paginated results, what the default page size is, or whether filters/sorting are applied server-side. For a browse tool, these are meaningful behavioral gaps.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two sentences and front-loads the core action ('Browse rows in a table') before the connection detail. Every sentence earns its place, though the second sentence could have been more informative about pagination or filtering.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given 9 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is under-specified. An agent cannot know how to construct filters, what page/page_size defaults are, what sort_direction values are valid (though the enum helps), or what the response shape looks like. The owned-user connection note is helpful but does not compensate for the missing operational details.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, but it only mentions db_username/password and table browsing. It does not explain the meaning of page, page_size, filters, sort_column, or sort_direction, which are all present in the schema. The description adds almost no value beyond the schema's property names, leaving the agent to guess at filter syntax and pagination semantics.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb ('Browse') and resource ('rows in a table'), and the tool name already signals the PostgreSQL engine. It distinguishes itself from the MySQL/MSSQL/Mongo browse siblings by the ecp_postgres_ prefix, though it doesn't explicitly name a sibling. The phrase 'Connects as the given db_username/password' adds a useful operational detail.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies this is the read-only row-browsing tool for PostgreSQL, and the sibling list contains ecp_postgres_list_columns, ecp_postgres_table_sizes, and ecp_postgres_browse_rows, so an agent can infer when to use it. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over ecp_mysql_browse_rows or ecp_mssql_browse_rows, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites beyond the owned-user requirement.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.